Stewart blasts "Crossfire," pundits fire back

Conan O'Brien

AP/Chris Carlson

Conan O'Brien

Conan O'Brien (AP/Chris Carlson)

Maureen RyanTribune staff reporter

The heat of this intense political season crossed over to CNN's "Crossfire" Friday and continued to make a stir on the Web Monday after Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," blasted the CNN program during a guest appearance.

Though Stewart was on "Crossfire," hosted by pundits Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, Friday to promote his new best-selling book "America," the popular fake-news host was most definitely not in funny-guy mode. He took Begala and Carlson to task for engaging in televised "theater" that fails to enlighten and educate the public on current events and important issues.

"The thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations," Stewart said. "And we're left out there to mow our lawns."

"Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America," Stewart said. "You're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery."

Carlson and Begala appeared taken aback by Stewart's earnest criticism and his failure to quip and banter.

"Wait. I thought you were going to be funny," the bow-tie wearing Carlson said on the show. "Come on. Be funny."

"No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey," Stewart answered.

The increasing tension between the three men was punctuated at the end of the program when Carlson said, "I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion."

"You know what's interesting, though?" Stewart answered. "You're as big [an expletive] on your show as you are on any show."

On Monday, Carlson commented on what he called Stewart's "pomposity."

"I thought and I still think that he's a smart and talented guy. That was not clear from anything he said on our show," Carlson said. "I just expected him to have something interesting to say and I didn't think it was so interesting. I thought it was banal, what he said."

"There is a real anger out there at the media, and in many ways I share it," Begala said Monday. "All I can control is my half of the half-hour, and I am so proud of my half of the half-hour. He's just wrong."

Through a Comedy Central representative, Stewart Monday declined to comment. A spokesman for the network said the epithet Stewart called Carlson "may be the one line [Stewart] regrets," and added that there would be "no objection" to Carlson being a guest on "The Daily Show."

Stewart's appearance definitely struck a nerve with the public; the Friday edition of "Crossfire" became a hot topic on the Internet over the weekend.

Transcripts of the interview and clips from the show popped up all over the Web, and the site-ranking service Blogdex.net showed that a dozen Stewart-"Crossfire" stories were among the most popular stories on the Internet. On www.ifilm.com, a "Crossfire" excerpt was the most viewed clip on Monday.

Comedy Central said that "The Daily Show" had received more than 1,000 supportive e-mails after the program aired.

Though Carlson and Begala took Stewart to task for his less-than-hard-hitting interview of John Kerry on "The Daily Show" in August, Stewart's response to that line of questioning on Friday was succinct.

"You're on CNN," he said later in the program. "The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."

"What a copout," Carlson said Monday. "On the one hand, he wants to play media critic and cultural critic, and on the other hand, if challenged, he retreats into `I'm just a comedian' mode. I mean, that's pathetic."

"I say what I think and I'm happy to defend what I think," Carlson added. "He immediately says, `It's not fair to criticize me because I work on a comedy show?' Give me a [expletive] break. I mean, come on. That's ridiculous."

Stewart's overall point Friday seemed to be that real, informative debate doesn't occur on programs such as "Crossfire": "To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition," Stewart said.

"If your point is that people who get all their news from `Crossfire' are not well served, I agree," Carlson said Monday. "You don't come to `Crossfire' to find out what happened yesterday. You come to `Crossfire' to find out what to make of what happened yesterday, I guess. That's what we do. [Stewart's criticism] is a complete and willful and very dumb misreading of what our job is. `Oh you're part of the problem because you're loud and you're mean and you're partisan.' Oh, please. Give me a break."

"`Crossfire' is a non-constructive form of `talk show' and represented the divisive and shallow television media news and politics of today. I'm glad Jon Stewart had the guts to point this out and call them on it," blogger Joi Ito wrote on the Web Saturday.

Whatever the level of the debate on "Crossfire," Carlson rejected the notion that he's pushing anyone's agenda.

"I don't speak for a party or an organization, I speak for me, period," said the conservative Carlson. So Stewart calling him a partisan hack "is just a false criticism when applied to me. I'm not being defensive, I'm just being truthful."

Surprisingly, given the level of tension between the men at the end of the program, which looked like it could have concluded in fisticuffs, Carlson said Stewart stuck around after the taping for 90 minutes, continuing to talk about media ethics with the "Crossfire" hosts.

"I don't get the sense he was doing this for publicity," Carlson said. "I felt like, and he even said, this was like an explosion that had been a long time in the making. It wasn't about convincing us, it was about having this cathartic experience."

"I wish we had taped the discussion in the green room," Begala said. "He's very, very thoughtful and very bright, and he's upset at how the media covers things."

Despite Carlson's dismissal of Stewart's criticism of "Crossfire," there seemed to be some common ground between him and the "Daily Show" host.

"Look, he's against partisanship and so am I," Carlson said. "I happen to think he's sort of partisan, frankly, but whatever -- that's a whole other question. But partisanship being a blind allegiance to a group -- I think you ought to think for yourself, come to your own conclusions. And partisanship by definition makes that impossible."

Carlson also said that anyone who got all their information from television shows, let alone only "Crossfire," would not be well-informed.

"If you want to be informed enough to vote, you have to read a daily newspaper, period. You cannot get enough information from television," Carlson noted. "If you read a serious daily newspaper every day, you know what the issues are, you know where the candidates stand and you have some sense of what's going on in the world."

Besides, the "Crossfire" host added, Stewart "is not the first person to give me this lecture."

"I enjoy his show, even though he doesn't like mine," Begala said.

Oct. 8, 2004: 'Farscape' and the future of television

When is the revival of a science fiction TV show a good thing for non-sci fi fans? When it points the way toward a new system of on-demand television that will allow a dedicated coterie of thousands of fans (rather than millions of Nielsen viewers) to support certain kinds of shows.

Below are extended excerpts from interviews with Ben Browder, Claudia Black and executive producers Brian Henson and Rockne S. O'Bannon, talking about Sci Fi Channel's groundbreaking series "Farscape," its return in miniseries form on Oct. 17-18, and the fan campaign that brought the show back.

Check out the Sunday Arts section on Oct. 10 (you can find the online version of A+E here) to read more about the campaign to revive "Farscape," why it worked and how it might be a sign of things to come and a good thing for the future of television. There will also be a story about why "Farscape" inspired such massive devotion from its fans.

So who the heck is Harvey?

The "Harvey" mentioned below deserves an explanation of his own, if you're new to the show.

On "Farscape," astronaut John Crichton is shot through a freak wormhole into a much disputed part of outer space, and ends up having many adventures with the crew of a living space ship called Moya.

Along the way, he ends up with super-special information in his head regarding the formation and creation of wormholes. A character called Scorpius (Wayne Pygram) chases Crichton and the rest of the Moya crew around the galaxy in pursuit of that information.

In an effort to weasel the wormhole info out of Crichton, Scorpius implanted a version of himself in Crichton's brain. Crichton called this version of Scorpius "Harvey," after the imaginary-character film of the same name. "Harvey" and Crichton would often have hilarious dialogues in humorous or bizarre settings, but all these dialogues actually took place inside Crichton's brain. Harvey reappears in the miniseries, and his very last appearance is a doozie and a half.

Got that?

Anyway, on with the show.

BEN BROWDER, "Farscape's" John Crichton

Ben Browder on Crichton:

There are times when I was playing Crichton when I would just get so frustrated with him, then there are times when I went into work saying, "Poor John." Crichton is an interesting character, he was a gift and a challenge. It was always a challenge to strike the right balance ¡V how do you play this guy and not let him get beaten down by the nature of the universe?

The thing I loved most about Crichton, and I actually said this at Comicon, [someone asked] what's the essence of the character, and I said hope. I don't think we see enough of that in the world around us, I don't think we see enough of that in the media.

I went down to Australia and read with four girls. I came back and I said, You've got to get this one girl. You've got to get her. It was apparent nobody could carry Aeryn the way Claudia could.

The idea of a [woman] who is simultaneously tough and vulnerable and sexy is a killer combination. The way that Claudia played the character ¡V she didn't back off. She didn't put the brakes on the character.

On "Farscape's" moral universe:

The nice thing about "Farscape" is that you got to be the good guy and still do the bad guy things. "I can't believe you did that, but I know why you did it." That's what holds the audience. You get into those areas of marginal stuff you can get very frustrated and wish they had made a better choice, but you experience the choice with them.

On how he hopes the miniseries will be received:

The people who scare me most in terms of trying to satisfy are the people who watch the show. The fans of the show, our audience is the most difficult bunch of people to satisfy in the history of television.

There are things they love, and we can get away with certain things because they love the show, but my God, they're hard on us sometimes. What would be acceptable for other shows, it's like, Man, what do we have to do? [laughs] They're great in that they do love the show, but they're not hesitant in being critical of what they don't like.

On the fan campaign to bring the show back:

The persistence the tenacity of it and the cleverness of it¡K I mean, anyone who would think to send bras to Sci Fi in support of "Farscape" ¡K It's just creative. There's a wealth of creativity out there revolving around the show, which comes from the fans themselves.

If everyone had been mute and silent, [the show would not have come back]. Brian [Henson] has pretty much said without the fans it wouldn't be happening. That's not trying to be gracious, that's just a fact.

On "Farscape's" unconventional nature:

I had a conversation with David Kemper, we went to a tennis match before I went down to Australia [in 1999]. The gist of our conversation was basically this: "David, I don't want to go down to Australia and come back and have done the same thing that everyone else has done. I'd rather fail gloriously." David Kemper felt and feels the exact same way. He'd rather go down in flames than repeat what someone else has done.

On episodic stories versus more complicated story arcs in TV:

That [emphasis on stand-alone episodes] comes and goes. Someone told me what the networks were looking for this year was serial as opposed to episodic style television. They want to get a fanbase and hold it because the casual fanbase was leaking off into too many other areas, so they want what "Farscape" was. The original edict for "Farscape" was "get an audience and hold them."

Shows like "24," networks want those kind of shows [now], because they hold an audience. Shows like "Survivor" are about holding an audience for an entire season. And you hold audiences by giving them that continual story. And that is the advantage of telling episodic television, 22 hours of television, as opposed to two hours of film. You're telling a different style of story.

And finally:

God forbid they ever make a story about the making of "Farscape." I read [William] Shatner's "Star Trek Memories." And because I was in the middle of doing a science fiction show at the time, part of me just went, "Is everyone just going to hate me in 20 years?" [laughing]. I had a great time and I hope everybody had a great time doing it, but these tell-all things, they can be really ugly.

BRIAN HENSON, executive producer of "Farscape"
and director of "The Peacekeeper Wars"

Henson on recreating the worlds of "Farscape":

When we were in pre-production on the miniseries, and had to rebuild everything from scratch, we all felt like we were in some weird time warp. We looked at photos of us [doing the same things] five years earlier, and we all looked five years younger. We all looked like kids. But we were all doing exactly the same thing.

We had torn down the sets. We would keep things like doorknobs and lamp fixtures and stuff like that. But we had to rebuild all the sets. There's pretty much nothing [from the old sets] that ended up on the screens, we built or rebuilt everything. We knew at the end of season four that [for a fifth season] we were going to have to largely rebuild everything anyway. After 88 episodes, we were gluing those Peacekeeper guns back together.

Henson on Aeryn Sun's (Claudia Black) emotional journey:

To have a female character that was raised to be purely militaristic, almost all her feminine attributes were deprogrammed out of her and any nurturing instinct was removed -- to have that character find her nurturing side is a wonderful story, compelling and funny.

On the fan campaign for more "Farscape":

Because of what the fans did, "Farscape" is alive again. At the end of season four, I really did explore all options. Because of the fan attention, an unexpected and almost unprecedented solution for going into production presented itself. But because of that we've now brought "Farscape" to a much better place.

The possible future activity ¡V there's lots of options. Whereas [before] I was out of options completely, until this very unlikely and much appreciated opportunity came. Now, "Farscape" -- as a story, as a world, as the characters -- [all] are now at a place where there are lots of options open.

Basically what happened was, the fans were talking about "Farscape" so much online, begging for it to come back and placing ads in magazines all over the world. There was a consortium of financiers that saw this. They knew the show and thought, maybe we can help them. [They said] "We've got so much faith in "Farscape" and we would like you to do the final chapter, we'll finance it without a broadcaster. And that will never happen again.

So I got that financing but [the financiers are] not in distribution, so I went to Hallmark for a chunk of the financing but they said, "We'll put in the rest and do the distribution, as long as you can make [the miniseries] by this date." They wanted it so fast. ¡K We were already shooting before we really started to talk to Sci Fi.

On the show ending up on Sci Fi Channel:

I was really hoping it would end up on Sci Fi. They have the whole series and what's great is that they will do a huge "Farscape" [promotion] where they're going to air all 88 hours leading up to the miniseries and all of that is really what I was hoping for. It will become a two-day event on Sci Fi.

And truthfully if somebody else were airing it, Sci Fi probably would have been a little miffed, I'm sure, because they were why we starting making it. They paid a lot of money for "Farscape" to go for the first four seasons. And it was a huge risk for them. I think they paid more than any cable channel had ever paid for a TV series, and it was their very first [original] series. We owe such a thanks to them and every season that they were able to renew, I was thrilled.

I know there was a negative feeling toward Sci Fi when they didn't order season five, but the truth is, every season it was like a miracle that they managed to pull together the financing to order the next season. So it was a huge disappointment that we weren't going to make season five, but not unexpected.

On the changing nature of financing TV shows:

DVD has gone into the mix now. In the television business, the advertising dollar is making less money for the series, so people are already programming in a certain amount of DVD revenue to help pay for the production of television.

On bringing in a new audience to "Farscape":

I wanted to make sure that the fans got a wonderful experience, but at times in the series, we were getting so inside ¡V and we knew it ¡V that it was almost like we were saying to the audience, unless you've watched a few episodes, you're not going to really be able to follow what's going on here, and that's part of what's cool and interesting about "Farscape."

We knew that that would be not a good idea with a big event production. I needed to make sure that this was more accessible and an audience that didn't know "Farscape" could follow it and didn't need to know the series.

On Harvey:

I think the hardest one for the audience to get will be Harvey. We had a big old two minutes of narrative between Harvey and Crichton that explained why he was there inside Crichton's head, and we thought, you know what, the new audience does need [that scene], but boy, does the film need this scene not to be that much longer.

On the future of "Farscape":

I don't know exactly what I want to do next. I want to see how this miniseries is received by critics and by the audience. The great thing about "Farscape" is we have such a huge fanbase which is very articulate and knows how to communicate with us that I'm going to wait to see what the audience says, and where the audience would like to see us go.

In the meantime, I am also looking at and exploring different options that include movies, spinoff series and additional miniseries if that makes sense. I think what will happen is coming out of this is the strength of the fan base creates a good business for any broadcaster or distributor, because of the amount of push and attention the fans can put into the property.

CLAUDIA BLACK, "Farscape's" Aeryn Sun

Black on working on "Farscape":

We could attempt to do the impossible. If we failed, at least we failed gloriously. To hear, take a bigger risk, just make it sassy and strong and out there is really rare and exciting note [from the network] at the end of the day. It's possibly screwed with my and Ben's head in terms of how we work on set.

TV is such specific beast, you have to detail things to the minute. There are rules in TV and we got to break quite a few of them, which suited our sensibilities. [As actors] we were allowed to do our things and try things and experiment. The creative process should always be collaborative, but TV makes it more difficult for that to be the case [but it was the case on "Farscape"].

From the beginning when "Farscape" started, the memo was that everything needed to be of film quality. When you're turning around episodes it's difficult, and with the miniseries, we had a very specific time frame in which we had to start filming.

But this team worked together for four years, so we have a profound shorthand, which makes it a lot easier to get things done. And the time away from it had given us the opportunity to come back refreshed. It also helps that you can throw whatever you have at it, you're not there for 8 months.

Black on her character, former soldier Aeryn Sun:

She really hated the idea of anyone thinking she was incapacitated. We know that Aeryn was a warrior first, a woman second. She really only became a woman when her life was thrown into disarray. That's why she has this spiritual growth. She can't return to the Peacekeepers, she has this massive internal evolution. Seeing her pregnant is the end of that cycle.

What I like is that Aeryn is capable of being honest. She doesn't understand the consequences of what she says. She hasn't lived in a realm of words. And she really got to the point that she did understand that you do things for love that you wouldn't otherwise have done.

Aeryn is serious damaged goods [in the beginning]. What was interesting was her journey to becoming a more self-aware person, aware of her emotions. Her capacity for growth was compelling, despite the odd situations and circumstances.

I also hope she's empowering to watch. I understand that sex on TV does sell. But they were really willing to let me protect her integrity. It was all right if she was androgynous, we were allowed to move beyond stereotypes.

They say that sex is in the mind, and that's how Aeryn and Crichton are together, it's the stuff that's left unsaid and the stuff before the kiss, the gray area, the subtext. If you're obvious, you're taking away from the audience's opportunity to fill in the blanks and identify with the characters on their own terms.

ROCKNE S. O'BANNON, creator and executive producer of "Farscape"

O'Bannon on re-starting "Farscape":

It came together incredibly fast. The first draft was written in matter of six weeks [by O'Bannon and David Kemper] at the end of the year. There were some production reasons they had to start shooting before the end of the year, so we had to crank it out very quickly, and we were making deals with people at the same time.

On the show's impressive roster of strong women characters:

That was a natural progression for the show. There was always the interest on the network's part to try to increase female viewership, but there was never an edict or a strong conscious effort on our part. We had really good actors in those roles and they just developed that way.

On the future of science fiction on TV:

I think the proliferation of [channels] via cable is a possible answer or direction, because you have more specific networks like Sci Fi. You can do things that are much more specific and you can get really passionate about a show even though you may not have huge numbers. If you're a vertically integrated corporation and you own your own DVDs, then you've got another revenue stream.

It's very hard for genre material to generate big [ratings] numbers. I'm watching "Lost" very closely because to me, they're gambling with the right guy [J.J. Abrams].

[With sci fi] you're asking the audience to pay more attention than they need to on other shows. When you see a character who is of another species, you have to concentrate and see whether he's good or bad.

And it's just expensive. Everything you saw on "Farscape" was pretty much made for the show. It takes longer to develop stories, everything has to be discussed [with the creative staff]. It's not like a [typical] show, where you can just say, "It's a high rise building with a bunch of lawyers." It's a big undertaking.

On the fans:

We had a healthier budget than we had for the series, and we also just wanted to make it bigger and more special so that we could really satisfy the fans. They had worked so hard for this. To present them with something that was [equivalent to] a C-plus or B-minus episode from the show -- that would have been pretty horrific.

Because the fur was certainly flying and the claws were out at the vice presidential debate on Tuesday. And if that was just the vice presidential debate, the second mano-a-mano meeting between George W. Bush and John Kerry on Friday promises to be bloody indeed.

ABC's Charles Gibson, the moderator of Friday's town meeting-style debate, should either invest in a heavy outergarment or consider moderating Friday's debate via satellite from a secure location. Because it's going to get ugly and quite possibly messy.

How aggressive was each man? Well, to quote Dick Cheney, it's hard to know where to start.

It's now clear that the first debate, which many rational Earthlings believe that Bush lost (or, perhaps more to the point, Kerry inexplicably failed to lose), was just a preliminary skirmish, in which each campaign learned the other's best lines and most glaring weaknesses.

So with Cheney and John Edwards, each side came back loaded for bear. If there was a contest for finger pointing ¡V and by that I mean literally pointing with one's finger, rather than metaphorically apportioning blame ¡V Tuesday's debate had to be a draw.

Still, there was a lot of actual finger pointing and a lot of fidgeting too. Cheney in particular seemed to be kneading his hands a lot, and toward the end of the debate, his hunched position and clasped hands seemed to obscure his microphone a bit. And as far as body language goes, in future Edwards, a.k.a. Smuggy McSmirky, might want to dial down that polite-yet-outraged-"I can't believe he said that" glare just a tiny bit.

Maybe if both men hadn't been sitting down for the debate, the fidgeting wouldn't have seemed as obtrusive (and maybe it wouldn't have appeared from certain camera angles that both men were Godzilla-sized monsters in pursuit of some moderator Gwen Ifill-sized sushi).

All in all, what had promised to be Darth Vader vs. a very pretty Luke Skywalker actually turned out to be a stern schoolteacher vs. a precocious student, almost literally at times. The most puzzling moment of the debate had to be when Edwards made some serious charges about Halliburton, the defense contractor where Cheney used to work.

Cheney responded to Edwards' remarks about no-bid Halliburton contracts with this: "You've got one of the worst attendance records in the U.S. Senate."

But just to flip flop over to Edwards for a moment, what was with his inability to follow simple instructions? When both men were asked by Ifill to answer a question without mentioning the man at the top of their respective tickets, Edwards couldn't quite manage it and mentioned Kerry twice.

Both men may have bobbled here and there, but who wouldn't have in that meatgrinder of a debate? It's no wonder that, when not launching more refined and aggressive versions of the attacks seen on Monday, each fell back on those for the familiar campaign lines that we've all heard a few kazillion times by now -- you know: "global test," "trial lawyers," "building coalitions," "health insurance," "Tora Bora," "more of the same," "Libya disarmed," "Howard Dean."

Whaaa? Howard Dean? How'd he sneak in there? Oh, Cheney said something or other about the fact that Kerry's inability to politically stand up to Dean's anti-war stand meant Kerry couldn't stand up to Osama bin Laden.

Yep, just a nice civilized debate here.

Well, the truth is, if it had been a nice, civilized debate, each man might have answered their questions in the time allotted and not gone back to furiously tack on additional information after Ifill had moved on to new topics.

And if it had been a nice, civilized debate, Cheney might have thanked Edwards for showing up, as Edwards thanked Cheney.

And if it had been a nice, civilized debate, I might actually have understood Edwards' position on gay marriage, which seemed to take at least 20 minutes to explain.

Then again, if it had been a nice civilized debate, much of the audience might have been asleep well before 9 p.m.

This was a vice-presidential debate, after all.

But this one, given the naked aggression on both sides, made for compelling political theater.

And Friday? Forget global tests. Friday's debate is going to be an intergalactic test. I am so there.

October 1, 2004 7:10 AM CDT: Next time, how about a tribal pit of fire?

The strangest part of debate night on Thursday occurred 40 minutes after George W. Bush and John Kerry walked off the stage in Miami.

Over on a live edition of "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart and Wesley Clark got into a discussion about whether, as John Kerry strenuously argued in the debate, bilateral talks were the way to go with North Korea.

Wait a minute. A former presidential candidate discussing real issues of international importance, based on intelligent questions from the host of ¡K a fake news program? Jeez, next you'll tell me that this entire campaign is going to degenerate into a serious discussion of substantive issues.

Where's the fun in that?

Because of the participants' unsettling tendency to engage in informed policy discussions, the debate had its drawbacks. As televised entertainment goes, the first presidential mano-a-mano contest was a giant heaping serving of steamed vegetables. Good for you, but not exactly big on the fun factor.

As the 90-minute showdown dragged on and on, as Bush pounded his lectern again and as Kerry took yet more notes like the prize debating student he once was, I began to wonder, what if they handed this whole process ¡V or at least one teeny little debate ¡V to reality guru Mark Burnett?

Think about it: He could turn a debate into one long boardroom grilling. Can't you just picture Carolyn Kepcher rolling her eyes as Bush, for the millionth time, characterized Kerry as wishy-washy flippity-floppy position-changer? Can't you just see the Trump-ster narrowing his eyes and saying "Get to the point!" as Kerry yammered on yet again about the Korean armistice of 1952?

Or, better yet, how about "Survivor's" Jeff Probst as moderator? Sure, the debate's real moderator, Jim Lehrer, did a fine job in a challenging, sometimes almost heated situation, but where were the questions about overall game ¡V er, I mean, campaign -- strategy?

Plus it would just look cool if there were a tribal council-style pit of fire on the stage. That blue background at the debate? Those plywood lecterns? A little dry, not quite "Queer Eye" enough, if you know what I mean.

I'm just thinking a Burnett-style debate could be a win-win for everyone. The networks could line up sponsors (classy ones, of course ¡V maybe the fine folks at No Doz could underwrite the whole thing), the TV broadcast might draw young viewers in need of education on the big issues of the day, and the presidential candidates themselves would get a chance to present themselves more openly and honestly as the ambitious schemers they really are. No shame in that game, especially when the winner gets a four-year trip to a really cool mansion (way better than the icky ones on "The Bachelor" or "The Benefactor").

Since the candidates mostly stuck to pre-fab stump-speech material anyway (okay, Mr. Kerry, I know you want strong alliances. Got it. President Bush, I know you're ticked at Kerry's perceived insults to Poland ¡V move on!), what could be the harm in putting them on a reality show, which everyone knows are halfway (or mostly) staged anyway?

Maybe the viewers would enjoy that kind of spectacle enough to watch the whole thing. Because the reality is that paying attention to 90 minutes of substantive, impassioned debate is work. Important work. Lengthy work.

But at least the three remaining Americans who didn't know where the candidates stood on the most important issues facing the country now know where Bush and Kerry stand.

(This story has been corrected to remove an incorrect description of Comedy Central's ownership. Comedy Central is owned by Comedy Partners, a wholly-owned division of MTV Networks, which in turn is owned by Viacom.)

It seems like just yesterday that Leno and David Letterman took over the late-night landscape, but Leno has been hosting "Tonight" since 1992 (Letterman started up his competing CBS "Late Show" the next year).

Though Leno won't be leaving "Tonight" until 2009, it's surprising that he's willing to give up the job at all. Given how hard he worked to get the gig - and how seriously he's taken the late-night battle between himself and Letterman - I always assumed he was behind the "Tonight" desk for life.

Having said that, I've always been partial to Letterman. Leno always seemed like he was trying way too hard, and his frenetic style was a real change from that of "Tonight" legend Johnny Carson, who was positively subdued by comparison to the sometimes manic Leno.

The biggest surprise, though, is that NBC tapped Conan O'Brien to take Leno's place. I wonder if they thought about talking to Letterman about the job, but for all we know, he's contemplating retirement in the next few years too. And perhaps the memory of NBC passing over him for the "Tonight" job in favor of Leno was still too bitter for Letterman.

Does O'Brien have what it takes to appeal to middle America? I seriously doubt we're going to be seeing Triumph the Insult Comic Dog on O'Brien's "Tonight" show, that's for sure. O'Brien's humor is much edgier than Leno's, and I don't think he'll be quite as masterful as Leno at sucking up to A-list stars.

Then again, I thought O'Brien's late-night career would never last as long as it has. He's outlasted his critics before, and he may do it again.

And it looks like NBC really wants to hold on to O'Brien, given that they're announcing the succession five years early. Can O'Brien really hold on -- interviewing B-list movie actors and WB network stars -- for that long? Yeesh. That's got to be irritating.

The next question: Who gets O'Brien's show? Jon Stewart? After all, though Stewart just signed a new contract with Comedy Central, NBC will no doubt be searching for a hip new host for the show that follows "Tonight" (this sentence as originally posted has been corrected).

By all means, stay tuned.

September 10, 2004 6:33 AM CDT
Men get trounced: Some final thoughts on the 'Apprentice' premiere

Finally, I can say what I've been dying to say since I saw the preview tape of "The Apprentice's" season two premiere:

"Crustacean Nation"? How lame was that?

I think I actually laughed out loud when that concept first surfaced among the men's team. Do any of those guys have small children? Because I don't think you could find a kid between the ages of 2 and 12 who'd think the concept of crab-by action figures was cool.

Unless there was a SpongeBob Squarepants connection (but I bet none of the Mosaic men would have known who he was unless he'd been profiled in Business Week).

Clearly the women just trounced the men this time out. And speaking of gender, isn't it interesting that in the boardroom, a man (Rob) was all pouty and whiny while a woman (Pamela) was tough -- even criticized as being too tough?

You can make the case that there is a whole lot of stereotyping on reality TV -- but sometimes, the lack of stereotyping is completely refreshing.

Overall, the fact that Pamela made it through is probably a good thing for the show. I bet she makes a lot of her fellow contestants really mad, which makes for good television, but I also wouldn't be surprised to see her go far. She has loads of self-confidence, which counts for a lot on this show.

Then again, I also thought Mirna and Charla were going to win on the current season of "The Amazing Race," but they got kicked off the show the day I predicted that in print. So there's a good chance Pamela will be sent packing next week.

One final thought -- or question, really. Do you think you'll end up watching the "encore" "Apprentice" presentations with extra boardroom footage on Saturday nights? Post your thoughts on the message board, if you have any thoughts on this topic.

I'm torn. For example, this week, I don't know if I can take any more of Rob's whining, but on the other hand ¡K it's extra boardroom footage! I know I'll break down and watch it. But you can be sure I'll watch it with one hand on the TiVo remote, given NBC's tendency to pad their successful shows with tons of extra commercials and promos.

And here's another prediction, for what it's worth. I bet by some time in November, "Apprentice" encore showings on Saturdays will be getting higher ratings than original episodes of the new NBC series "Joey."

I'm just sayin'.

Sept. 9, 2004: The Donald fires up new 'Apprentice'

In typical boardroom fashion, I'll cut to the chase: Yes, "The Apprentice" (7:30 p.m., WMAQ-Ch. 5) is just as good this time around as it was during its first blockbuster run.

An advance tape of the first episode of the second "Apprentice" season reveals that Donald Trump is just as bombastic, the would-be moguls are just as competitive, and, thanks to the efforts of reality titan Mark Burnett, the pacing and suspense of the show is calibrated just right.

And to answer your second question: Yes, there may just be a couple of Omarosas-in-training on this edition of the program, though no one yet seems to have her ultra-dramatic personality.

But my heart sank when Stacie J., the only black woman on the show, was singled out for her "nuttiness" early on. Among the hundreds of thousands of applicants for the show, the producers couldn't find one nutty white woman? Or even a nutty guy?

One surprise in the first episode: product placement, a big part of unscripted TV these days, wasn't as obnoxious as I thought it would be. This year, as Trump announces in the opening minutes of the show, "The Apprentice" has lined up major corporate sponsors who'll be overseeing various challenges and projects that the contestants will be undertaking.

The way it's done here, though, makes sense, given the corporate milieu of the show. Mattel executives oversee a toy-creating challenge mid-way through the first episode, and, yes, the Mattel logo is flashed every few minutes during that portion of the show.

But the challenge is interesting, and participation of a big company in "The Apprentice" doesn't seem as strange or off-putting as, say, the odd Pepsi-sponsored toast that once halted the proceedings on an episode of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

Far more noticeable than the product placement is the decor in Trump's apartment and in the contestants' suite, where wretched excess was clearly left behind as too staid and uptight. But somehow, the cheeseball interiors (gold doors in Trump's apartment, fake Roman statues in the group flat) go with the inherent cheesiness of Donald Trump.

His whipped-cream poufball of a hairdo, his va-va-voom girlfriend, his bombastic statements ("I'm the largest developer in New York"), his Liberace-on-acid decor sense -- all the overkill ends up being oddly endearing. And memorable, to say the least.

And in business, as the Donald surely knows, being remembered is half the game.

A few of the contestants make a distinct impression in the first episode: Raj, the most bombastic so far of the male candidates, certainly dressed to make an impact, accessorizing with two-tone shoes, bow ties and a cane. Pamela, who led an all-male team on the first challenge, seemed to be looking down her nose at everyone the entire time, and her fellow contestants certainly picked up on that.

None of the other candidates made a huge impression, but that didn't mean I'm not dying to know who got fired.

But on the advance tapes that it sent out, NBC cut out the final few minutes, in the hopes of preventing the press from revealing the first fire-ee to the world. There were also a couple of minor adjustments to boardroom procedure that come off as minor tweaking, but which Burnett asked reviewers not to reveal.

I can tell you two things: Somebody does get fired. And I'll be watching next week.

If you didn't catch "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart interviewing John Kerry on Tuesday night, you didn't really miss much -- except the part where Kerry took up a microphone and started freestyling over a 50 Cent song. Anything to appeal to the kids, you know.

Okay, I made that last part up. Because, people, this was John Kerry, and he's no Bill Clinton.

He gave a much sought-after interview to a hip show that the youngsters watch, rather than to a stodgy network program, but the man didn't have a charisma transplant as well.

Kerry didn't wail on the sax or wear shades, a la Clinton on the Arsenio Hall show back in the day.

Kerry was relaxed, but not especially funny. Then again, neither was Stewart, who appeared nervous but did a reasonable job with his biggest-ever interview subject. And tallest-ever, by the looks of things.

"I understand that, apparently, you were never in Vietnam," Stewart asked at the start of the interview.

Handed an easy set-up, Kerry just laughed and said, "That's what I understand, too. But I'm trying to find out what happened."

Does the man know funny or what?

Kerry mainly was concerned with sticking to his prepared script ¡V something about his belief that Americans really want to have a civil political discourse about health care and jobs, instead of mud-slinging over events that did or did not occur half a world away and decades ago.

Huh. Interesting thought. Nah, that'll never fly.

In the process answering questions about the Swift Boat Veterans controversy, Kerry avoided dumping too much blame for the ads attacking his war service directly on President Bush.

In his calm (dare I say stodgy?) manner, he did take a few shots at the president ("I mean, what's he going to do? Come out and say we lost 1.8 million jobs?") but he also gave his opponent credit for being a formidable politician.

He even went so far as to say that he thinks Bush will be a tenacious opponent in the upcoming presidential debates.

All in all, it was a polite performance.

As for Stewart vs. Kerry, I'd say it was pretty much a draw. Both men got through the interview with their dignity intact. Though at one point, as Kerry rattled off yet another list of his plans for America, Stewart's impish side won out. "Can you get me on a network?" he asked.

Why would Jon Stewart want to be on a network? As it is now, the world ¡V or in this case, the potential leader of the most powerful state in the world -- is coming to him.